Tag Archives: cigarettes

Does Cigarette Smoke Contain Free Radicals?

Continuing with my new theme of responding to relevant questions in the blog, here is an email I received today:

I have recently a heard an “expert” on ageing (on a slovenian tv show, I’m from Slovenia) say that one puff of smoke contains roughly one BILLION free radicals, which supposedly explains why smokers allegedly age faster than non-smokers. He also showed photos of identical twins (one smoker and the other not): of course the smoker looked much older than the non-smoker twin. I was not pursuaded by the “evidence”; if one twin smokes and the other does not then there are certainly other environmental factors that differ between the two. I would be really grateful if you could tell me what real figures on free radicals in one cigarette are. Thank you!

 

Continue reading Does Cigarette Smoke Contain Free Radicals? →

The Problem With Smoking Epidemiology

2 Comments

Some of you may remember the CATCH debate over at Frank Davis’ blog, primarily between myself, Frank and Chris Snowdon about the effects of active smoking on health. Frank made a very interesting point that, so far as I can see, hasn’t been acknowledged in any of the studies: cigarette size.

Frank stated that true science uses rigorous standards of measurements, and to keep it as basic as possible when we say “one centimetre” we don’t mean “somewhere between this length and that length, but it varies” – one centimetre is one centimetre, and the recent success in trapping antimatter was certainly only achieved with rigorous and painstaking accuracy, not a “it should be sort of that much”. In mathematics, 1+1 = 2, 1.5 + 1 = 2.5; the slightest change makes a big difference to the outcome, and the same is true of science.

Epidemiology, particularly on smoking, is somewhat different. The humble cigarette is itself considered a unit of measurement – “how many cigarettes do you smoke a day?” for instance. This is fine if each study participant smoked the same brand, for they will be the same size and strength. However, beyond such a level of control there really is no symmetry. A marlboro Red is different to a Marlboro Light or a Camel Light, but it gets murkier in the world of roll your own.

Typically, a ‘rollie’ is much smaller than the size of a standard pre-made cigarette. Yet in studies the researchers do not ask if the participant smokes pre-made or roll-ups, rather if both smoke ten a day, they get classified as ten a day – when in reality the one rolling his own is smoking perhaps 50% that of the person smoking the pre-mades. But some people roll their cigarettes incredibly thin and tight, with or without filters, while others roll them as fat as a regular cigarette. Others use the ‘tubes’ to make their own cigarette that is the same size as a pre-made.

On my current trip to America I have noticed the huge difference in filter size for roll-ups compared to what we have in the UK. At home, even the largest filter commonly available is about half the size of that found in a pre-made cigarette. In the USA, filters are almost the same size as the pre-made filters, or they can be smaller, and the papers are much bigger too. Some filters are longer and narrower, others wider and shorter. The paper tends to be much wider than what is on sale in the UK, so roll-ups in the USA can be much bigger.

Studies into smoking have tried over the decades to turn a ‘cigarette’ into a unit of measurement. The problem is, it isn’t. It’s like asking how many plates of food someone eats a day when the plate could range from a saucer-sized one to a large dinner plate. Hence why typically diet research deals in calories, and drink research deals in units. With cigarettes, such a rigorous distinction has not been made. Not only do cigarettes vary a lot, but people have different smoking habits – some will smoke only half, some will smoke while preoccupied and inhale very little, some will inhale every available puff that’s on offer.

If we try to evaluate something scientifically, we need protocolos, measurements and definitions. If we don’t have them and try to measure something anyway, what can we really deduce? Even if we happen to find some sort of link, there’s no way to of testing the authenticity of the results.

For much more interesting musings over this topic, head over to Frank’s blog.

Thirdhand Smoke Heats Up

4 Comments

The first post of this new blog focuses on thirdhand smoke. It’s a sad state of affairs that this ridiculous notion is still getting attention, but on the plus side the attention is largely disproving the claim that it poses a health threat – though that isn’t stopping the anti-smoking HQ (California) devoting vast sums to “research” into thirdhand smoke. The Request for Proposals (RFP) to “undertake studies on Thirdhand Smoke and Cigarette Butt Waste, under a new initiative” is receiving approximately $3.75 million. Are these people unaware there is a recession and wasting public money should be curbed? Anyway, back to the study in hand.
This is possibly the first study that actually measures thirdhand smoke and compares it to secondhand smoke, which, frankly, is quite disappointing as it means the claims leveled against THS up to this point have been done with no basis. Then again, we already knew that. As Michael Siegel noted, the study, published in Tobacco Control, found that the concentrations of particulate matter in thirdhand smoke were 100 times lower than in secondhand smoke, measured in the same room.
The methodology was as follows:
“A smoking device burned 10 cigarettes in 30 minutes in a non-ventilated furnished room that was then kept closed. On the next day, for particle resuspension, we mobilised the dust on furniture, clothes and surfaces by wiping and shaking and created even more turbulence with a ventilator. An impactor (ELPI) measured the particle sizes (between 0.28 μm and 10 μm) and concentration in the air, 60 cm above the floor: on the first day before and after the cigarettes were smoked (secondhand smoke) then 4 hours later, 24 hours later, before and after resuspension manoeuvres (thirdhand smoke).”

The researchers found that:
“after cigarette smoking: the airborne particles … concentration was divided by 100 in the first 4 hours and again by 100 in the following 24 hours. After resuspension, the concentration was multiplied by 100, going back to that observed 4 hours after smoking.”

The study concludes: 
“These quantitative data support the hypothesis of a resuspension from the cigarette smoke surface contamination. However, this airborne contamination through resuspension remains much lower (100 times) than that of secondhand smoke. The rest of the aerosol mass initially produced by cigarettes could be firmly attached either to surfaces, leading to ingestion hazards and dermal transfer or to household dust and be inhaled with it.”
The first part of the conclusion clearly states to any rational person that the THS story should be put to bed. However, being tobacco control, such an admission could never be made and so they must resort to saying that “ingestion hazards” and inhalation risks exist. In theory, this may be true. In reality, this is true: thirdhand smoke exists, and there exists the possibility that some degree may be ingested, but the quantity would be so small as to be barely measureable. We already know that 90% of secondhand smoke is ordinary air and water, and that the risks of SHS are so negligible as to be more or less non-existant – only individuals with an almost unprecedented level of sensitivity are posed any harm, and such people are also threatened by day-to-day pollution, dust particles etc. So having established this, why should any person worry about particulate matter that measures in at 100 times lower than the essentially harmless secondhand smoke?
This study effectively demolishes the claims by Dr Winickoff and ASH etc, who roundly spew the garbage that a smoker with a lingering odour of tobacco poses a health threat to healthy co-workers, friends and family. Moreover, it certainly provides reason to abolish the absurd, but increasingly popular, trend of not hiring smokers solely because they smoke under the pretence that thirdhand smoke puts others at risk.